There is no lawful compromise to the HHS mandate. The indispensable Ed Whelan writes:
Word is that the White House today will float some sort of supposed “compromise” version of the HHS contraceptive mandate. There is only one revision that will satisfy the clearcut command of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (and a correct application of the Free Exercise Clause, even post-Employment Division v. Smith—see last point here ): Any employer with a religious objection to providing coverage for contraceptives and/or abortifacients must be free to opt out of providing such coverage. The employer’s ability to do so can’t be conditioned on whether he is operating a “religious” organization. The government can then pursue any of various other means to provide contraceptive services to affected employees—means that don’t involve dragooning objecting religious employers to violate their deeply held beliefs.
"Any employer with a religious objection to providing coverage for contraceptives and/or abortifacients must be free to opt out of providing such coverage"
This will never happen. Staking out such an illogical and extreme position as the only possible acceptable outcome is a recipe for failure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just want you to know that this illogical and extreme position is the position we are currently in before this law goes into effect, and it has been that way from the birth of our country until now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a complete and total lie. In fact, in many states, Catholic hospitals are ALREADY required to provide contraception coverage to their employees. And they do so with no problems and no existential crises. It's all just a bunch of hot air on the part of the church.
What more, the EEOC ruled in 2000 that contraception was indeed a basic part of human health care; and the courts agreed with them when it was brought to trial:
External Link
In short, you have no actual knowledge of the law or history surrounding access to contraception in America. You're just a loudmouth on a blog.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBartell made no argument regarding religious exemption in its defense and the decision stated that ""Title VII does not require employers to offer any particular type or category of benefit. However, when an employer decides to offer a prescription plan covering everything except a few specifically excluded drugs and devices, it has a legal obligation to make sure that the resulting plan does not discriminate based on sex-based characteristics and that it provides equally comprehensive coverage for both sexes."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseState mandates, right or wrong, good or bad, true or imagined, are not the same as a federal mandate. It bears noting that even calling it a federal mandate further obfuscates the point that we've lost the meaning of federal. In fact, we are talking about a mandate foisted upon us by the national government. In American Federalism, properly understood, the states are indeed allowed to do things that the national government is prohibited from doing by the Constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStates are not the Federal Government.
The EEOC cannot make Constitutional determinations.
Access to contraception has never been in question here, AS YOU KNOW. It is about who is being forced to pay for "contraceptives."
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"States are not the Federal Government."
This is always a sign that your argument has failed.
You have no real response to the fact that this is the law of the land in the majority of, well, the land... and there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem with it.
Tempest in a teapot, nothing more
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe states that have such a mandate provide exemptions that are far broader than the one HHS has offered. Furthermore, not all states have RFRAs, but the federal government does. If you want to repeal RFRA, do so. But if its one the books, it applies here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only federal appellate court to address the matter rejected the conclusion that the district court reached in the opinion TheFish links to (but missummarizes). Specifically, the Eighth Circuit ruled in Standridge v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007) that employers had no obligation to cover contraceptive drugs in their health-care plans. When the EEOC in 2009 tried to impose its contrary view on Belmont Abbey College, Belmont Abbey fought back and the EEOC backed down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat to see Ed Whelan wading into the comments to battle the misrepresentations of some. Kudos Ed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI want to thank the Fish for making what sounded like an authoritative argument because it prompted Ed Whelan to write in and thoroughly destroy what the Fish wrote. And now I know something I can use in debates going forward that I didn't know before.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGo-along-to-get-along days are long since passed.
You call it "extreme". We call it "correct" in the face of extremity.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a point I think is not being made enough here. If I, as a Christian business owner, do not want to support plans that cover Plan B or other abortion pills, I have the right to do that. It's my money and my religious exception to abortifacients. An exemption for religious institutions or businesses owned by religious institutions does NOT go far enough.
The only way to get this truly resolved is for somebody with standing to sue and have the law be struck down by the Supreme Court. Conversely, the Congress could reverse the law, but my guess is that will NEVER happen, even if the GOP takes over 100% of the seats of Congress because it gives the State power and they are a creature of the State.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"If I, as a Christian business owner, do not want to support plans that cover Plan B or other abortion pills, I have the right to do that."
No, you do not. You don't get to have a 'religious exception' from laws just because you say you do.
I love how people just sort of invent rights for themselves - when it's convenient.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, you lefties are notoriously good at inventing rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy don't you go and read Bench Memos and then come back before making yourself look even more silly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStrange to think that we just recently invented "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Here's how you partisan leftists get through your day without chugging Maalox:
Substitute "freedom of speech" for "freedom of religion" and pretend that the people complaining are the ACLU. Perhaps, then, you'll not see our reasonable extremism as any sort of vice.
BUY YOUR OWN birth control and pills that make you miscarry. We want no part of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Strange to think that we just recently invented "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"."
The current issue has nothing to do with free exercise of religion. Business /= religion. You can't just invent religious exceptions to things you don't like and expect to be exempt from laws.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Invent"?
Sorry, but our chicken existed long before this rotten egg. On this, both sides agree. This adds strength to our argument whilst it inspires many on your side to make a case for disparaging and/or ignoring our "outdated" Constitution.
I like our side better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it says a lot that TheFish thinks that laws superceed the constitution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse